Two months ago, on November 5, Secretary of State Kerry attended a ceremony in Tel Aviv marking the eighteenth anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination. Kerry lauded Rabin as “a great man of peace,” praised Rabin’s efforts to resolve Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, and urged rededication to Rabin’s vision.

Kerry is now striving to achieve agreement between the parties on elements of a peace accord, including security arrangements and future borders. Media reports say that in the coming weeks he will present his own blueprint addressing these issues. Kerry has repeatedly insisted Israel’s security is a non-negotiable priority in his quest for a path to peace.

Given his warm praise of Rabin and Rabin’s perspectives on the parameters of a genuine, durable peace, one would expect any blueprint from the secretary of state to incorporate what Rabin defined as areas vital for Israel’s defense.

Rabin, like the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 – still the foundation stone of Israeli-Arab peace negotiations – recognized that Israel’s pre-1967 armistice lines left the nation too vulnerable to future aggression. He insisted Israel must hold onto a significant portion of the West Bank to block traditional invasion routes and to protect both Jerusalem and the low-lying coastal plain, the latter home to some 70 percent of the nation’s population.

In his last speech in the Knesset before his assassination, Rabin declared:

The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six-Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:

A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev — as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.

C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the ‘Green Line,’ prior to the Six Day War.

D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria…

Nothing has changed in the last eighteen years that would diminish Israel’s need to retain the areas referred to by Rabin. The topography of the region has, of course, not changed, and the nations around Israel have not become more peaceful or more reconciled to Israel’s existence.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s vision of defensible borders for Israel essentially conforms to the parameters laid out by Rabin.

However, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has categorically rejected the territorial accommodations upon which Rabin insisted. He has indicated he will never recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, as the product of that national self-determination universally accorded other peoples, including Arab peoples.

He denies any Jewish historical link to the land of Israel. He praises those who seek Israel’s destruction and clearly aspires to an accord that renders Israel more vulnerable and ultimately indefensible.

According to media reports, aspects of likely proposals by Kerry include, at most, a time-limited Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and, in general, fall far short of the areas cited by Rabin as vital to Israel.

Some media reports even claim that Ambassador Martin Indyk and others working under Kerry have been trying to persuade former and present Israeli security officials to issue public statements downplaying Israel’s need for defensible borders.

Whatever alternatives Secretary Kerry, and the Obama administration, might propose to Israel’s having borders it can defend, and however much those alternatives are characterized as assuring Israel’s safety, they will in fact be a repudiation of Rabin’s legacy in his defining of key territorial requirements for Israel’s survival and well-being.

Any such dismissing of the Rabin parameters should be rejected by Israel and challenged by all those genuinely concerned with Israel’s security.

About the Author:

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

who give a damn what this Jew hater thinks, what is more important is what the leader of Israel thinks because he is the one who can make or break us.
Bib thinks and behaves like a subordinate, which is something Israel should never permit herself to be. But with leaders like him, and Ivni and Lapid, this is what is being presented, our weakness. That is why Kerry comes back, he knows he can get a concession. He is no dummy.
Until Israel demands that the US and EU stop funding the corrupt and illegal PA, this will continue. The UN are noting but an arm of the PA, they are an instrument in the war waged at Israel.When the money stops, the PA will dry up and fly away—

Time for our Bibilah to act like a man instead of a mouse and demand that the funding stop or there will be no talks, no prisoner releases, there will be no trade, no cheap gas, and there will be no access to the PA territory, and so forth ——Shalom and be well,Zionqueen

Much of the Israeli Left – including cultural and political leaders, journalists and academics – has in recent months engaged in hyperbolic, defamatory claims that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to destroy Israel’s democracy through proposed legislation such as that aimed at modifying how Israeli Supreme Court justices are selected.

Many are puzzled by the widespread support in European democracies of Palestinian groups and Arab states that promote genocidal anti-Semitism. After all, Palestinian and broader Arab anti-Semitism draws heavily, in its anti-Jewish propaganda, on Nazi models, and Western Europe and the European Union are supposed to be opposed to everything touching on Nazism and its genocidal policies.

The Obama administration’s high-profile focus on Israeli settlements and demand for a total freeze of construction beyond the pre-1967 armistice line have delighted many around the world, some of whom may even believe that settlements are the major obstacle to peace. But such views, like the administration’s slant on the issue, are based on false premises and oft-repeated misinformation.

The core of the Arab-Israeli problem is Israel’s “territorial addiction.” So declares a December 3 Haaretz article by one Alex Sinclair.

As to the solution, Sinclair does not quite echo Haaretz’s former executive editor David Landau, who urged Condoleezza Rice a year ago to “rape” Israel. Rather, he advocates a friendly but forceful stand by President-elect Obama to break Israel of its addiction – promoting, in the jargon of addiction treatment (although Sinclair doesn’t use the term), less violent-sounding “tough love” instead of rape.

Amos Oz never tires of finding ways to blame Israel for the absence of Arab-Israeli peace, no matter how clearly the voices on the other side, in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques, and schools, declare that their idea of peace is the annihilation of Israel and the destruction of its people. Nor does the celebrated Israeli novelist tire of grossly rewriting history to serve his blame-Israel narrative.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, in a July 18 op-ed on the current fighting between Israel and Hizbullah (“Hunkering Down With History”), declared that Israel’s creation was a “mistake.” He based this judgment of Israel on its Arab Muslim neighbors’ opposition to its existence.